IMF: social welfare benefits 'too high'

Boskowski

But how can you argue we only spend 20% ish on welfare when the welfare bill is 20 billion and the tax take is 35%?

KyussBishop

AlekSmart wrote:

As Stark has pointed out in a follow-up post,the relief KyussBishop refers to is Mortgage Interest Subsidy Payment,which is indeed an emergency measure funded by the State.

I am referring to the generally available PAYE Mortgage Interest Relief allowances,which are now at capped at the lowest tax rate and substantially reduced.

The reality,historically,was of hundreds of thousands of us (me included) availing of a direct Government subsidy to purchase our own wee plot of the Emerald Isle.

Ok yes, that makes sense; that's a subsidy indeed, and thankfully looks to be phased out in 5 years.

AlekSmart wrote:

It is my belief that the actual costs of resedential property ownership have been kept artifically low in order to keep a cabal of Politicians,Developers,Lawyers and associated property ownership related "Proffesionals" in clover.

How do you come to this conclusion after we just experienced the biggest property bubble in state history? (where most serious economists still think the price of houses has not bottomed out to realistic prices yet either)


As regards to the rest of your post: Much of the property speculators built the houses, not buying them at low cost. I still don't understand the logic of why you think houses should have cost even more?

The material and labour cost of houses, as I said earlier, puts a floor on the real value of houses that should make them affordable to just about everyone.
Why should property developers sell houses at an even higher price than before, making enormous profits relative to the cost of building, when that locks a significant number of people out of the market? (further locking them into having to rent, which will cost them even more in the long run)

It's perfectly possible to have a housing market where everyone can afford a house, so long as there are proper checks on credit, and other reforms to keep the prices from becoming ridiculously high.

AlekSmart wrote:

As to why I believe this...well Ireland as a productive entity,simply does not generate enough wealth to allow for ongoing universal resedential property ownership.

You'll need to provide some figures to back this up; preferably the cost of building a house vs average income. I am quite certain it is reasonable for everyone.


I mean, you see that the prices were massively inflated, and that people were given cheap credit (loans) far too easily, yet your answer is to make houses even more inflated in value, forcing people to spend even more in their lifetime renting, when the logical answer is to provide proper checks on credit and keep houses close to their base cost.

Heads the ball

sarumite wrote: »

How so? I also believe that what is moral and fair isn't always economically viable. It is not practical, however much desirable, to balance the books overnight.

May I remind you then when I said "it is immoral to have future generations pay for it" your response was



yet now you are stating it doesn't hold any weight

I said that in the context of my previous posts which were discussing the open guarantees to the banks. Adn that is immoral to ask future generations to pay that.

But you have a blanket statement of it being immoral to pay social welfare (and for that matter, all non capital expenditure) as we are in a deficit. And thats a daft position to have.

KyussBishop

Going beyond the obvious necessity to balance our budget: Why is there not talk of restructuring our debt in addition to that? If we get a writedown on much of our national debt, and pass that on to writing down some private debt, we can achieve a faster recovery and won't need to cut the budget so much.

djpbarry

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I have friends in London who pay what I consider crazy rents; you are talking 60% of their income on rent.

Well, that’s just ridiculous – there is something very wrong with someone’s financial affairs if they’re paying almost two thirds of their income on rent.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

BUT - When you compare like for like:
Person in Dublin pays 40% of their income on rent and 20% on car tax/ownership/maintenance to live in a series of glorified villages called Dublin.
vs.
Person in London pays 60% of their income on rent and 0% on cars to live in 1 of the world's three global cities.

How is that comparing like-for-like? You’re just comparing arbitrary figures? And you’ve conveniently omitted the massive cost of public transport in London.

The average income in Ireland at present is about €36k, which will leave about €28,400 after deductions. If you’re spending 40% of your income on rent, that equates to about €950 per month, which would permit anyone to rent a very nice one bed property within walking distance of wherever it is they work – no need for a car in those circumstances, assuming that they work relatively centrally in Dublin (as a lot of people do).

If someone earning the equivalent sum in London (£28k at current exchange rates) is spending about 40% of their income on rent, they’ll have about £720 per month to play with – there’s absolutely no way you’ll get a one bed flat in London for that. Even if you were to up that to 60% of net income (just under £1,100), you’re still not going to be able to get anything remotely central, leaving you with significant expense on public transport.

Granted, I’m taking a simple example here of a single person with no dependents, but it’s merely to illustrate the point: Dublin is not a particularly expensive place to live and rents, in particular, seem pretty reasonable.

sarumite

Heads the ball wrote: »

I said that in the context of my previous posts which were discussing the open guarantees to the banks. Adn that is immoral to ask future generations to pay that.

But you have a blanket statement of it being immoral to pay social welfare (and for that matter, all non capital expenditure) as we are in a deficit. And thats a daft position to have.

As a general principle imo it is immoral to rack up debts that you know you won't be the one paying off. As a practical application, it is wrong (and ultimately unsustainable) imo to remain in deficit and continue to rack up debts that you won't be paying off without making an effort to close that deficit. There is nothing immoral or unfair about cutting social welfare as part of a broader effort to close the deficit. By doing so within a broader scheme you are not singling out or making scapegoats of people on SW.

Heads the ball

sarumite wrote: »

There is nothing immoral or unfair about cutting social welfare as part of a broader effort to close the deficit. By doing so within a broader scheme you are not singling out or making scapegoats of people on SW.

This statement by itself is not something I would have issue with however the context of the bank guarantee must be considered.

For example: we wrote a blank cheque for banks. We drew no dictinction between "billions" let alone "millions." Whatever you need, we'll pay!

Now compare that to say a €10 decrease in SW. Lets say there are 500,000-1million people on welfare. That €10 saves a meager €260million-500million per year.

It seems nauseating to me to propose those cutbacks against the billions upon billions that were paid to banks without a question!!!!!!

And, those cuts are on the most vulnerable section of society.

I think we have a real disgusting instinct to attack and bully and sacapegoat people in this country. Thats not directed at any person here its moreso directed generally at the horrible right-wing sentiment that I perceive exists on these threads and advocates these courses of action.

sarumite

Heads the ball wrote: »

This statement by itself is not something I would have issue with however the context of the bank guarantee must be considered.

For example: we wrote a blank cheque for banks. We drew no dictinction between "billions" let alone "millions." Whatever you need, we'll pay!

Now compare that to say a €10 decrease in SW. Lets say there are 500,000-1million people on welfare. That €10 saves a meager €260million-500million per year.

The bank guarantee was an expenditure that impacted our debt quite a lot. However, the impact of our continuing fiscal deficit is not a result of the bank guarantee. Even without the failed banks, we are running a primary deficit (i.e. before we pay back any debt). Therefore we must look to reduce our primary expenditure. The money we are paying back to the troika currently has nothing to do with bank expenditure. Blaming the banks, while it certainly gives me a warm fuzzy feeling, doesn't actually deal with the problem at hand.

The reality is that the SW budget will probably need to be reduced by more than 2%.

Heads the ball

sarumite wrote: »

The bank guarantee was an expenditure that impacted our debt quite a lot. However, the impact of our continuing fiscal deficit is not a result of the bank guarantee. Even without the failed banks, we are running a primary deficit (i.e. before we pay back any debt). Therefore we must look to reduce our primary expenditure. The money we are paying back to the troika currently has nothing to do with bank expenditure. Blaming the banks, while it certainly gives me a warm fuzzy feeling, doesn't actually deal with the problem at hand.

The reality is that the SW budget will probably need to be reduced by more than 2%.

€10 would be a 5%

mitosis

EchoO wrote: »

But our spending on welfare is not exorbitant compared to other EU countries. In fact as a percentage of national income it's one of the lowest.


That's not to say that we can get to a budget deficit of 3.5% by 2015 without cutting the social protection budget, clearly we can't. But the argument that social benefits have to be cut on the grounds of affordability in the context of the bailout program is much more valid than saying they have to be cut just because they are "exorbitant".

Health is the one area area where we outspend our EU neighbours. Unfortunately our Health service doesn't reflect this

.

Housing is the big offender - not health.

General Atomic

sarumite wrote: »

As a general principle imo it is immoral to rack up debts that you know you won't be the one paying off. As a practical application, it is wrong (and ultimately unsustainable) imo to remain in deficit and continue to rack up debts that you won't be paying off without making an effort to close that deficit. There is nothing immoral or unfair about cutting social welfare as part of a broader effort to close the deficit. By doing so within a broader scheme you are not singling out or making scapegoats of people on SW.

The problem with your approach is that it's backwards. Instead of cutting the deficit with an aim to reducing our debt, we need to take more measures to stimulate our economy so that our deficit shrinks through increased tax income.

It's been shown time and again that economies suffer when the government makes major cuts to public services. Right now our economy cannot take any additional strain; our unemployment rate is still rising, we've not begun to truly recover yet. The social cost of high unemployment will be felt by the next generation too, not to mention the poorer public services and infrastructure they'll have because of the cuts you advocate. If we don't tackle our economic problems then the next generation will be mostly unemployed anyway!

Welease

Heads the ball wrote: »

€10 would be a 5%

Not of SW..

SW consists of various different schemes incl. housing/rent allowances, child benefits, medical cards etc.

A €10 cut for an unemployed family with 3 kids in social housing is far from a 5% cut to them...
A €10 cut across JSB/JSA is far from a 5% cut on the SW costs to the country.

AlekSmart

KyussBishop wrote: »

Ok yes, that makes sense; that's a subsidy indeed, and thankfully looks to be phased out in 5 years......

.......The material and labour cost of houses, as I said earlier, puts a floor on the real value of houses that should make them affordable to just about everyone.

Why should property developers sell houses at an even higher price than before, making enormous profits relative to the cost of building, when that locks a significant number of people out of the market? (further locking them into having to rent, which will cost them even more in the long run)

It's perfectly possible to have a housing market where everyone can afford a house, so long as there are proper checks on credit, and other reforms to keep the prices from becoming ridiculously high.

You'll need to provide some figures to back this up; preferably the cost of building a house vs average income. I am quite certain it is reasonable for everyone.

I mean, you see that the prices were massively inflated, and that people were given cheap credit (loans) far too easily, yet your answer is to make houses even more inflated in value, forcing people to spend even more in their lifetime renting, when the logical answer is to provide proper checks on credit and keep houses close to their base cost.

I'm afraid,KyussBishop,our perception of logic appears to differ.

I do not actually believe that Ireland has a base economy capable of allowing "everyone"
to own their own residence.

Furthermore I contend that that may even be less desireable in many ways,given the vast potential for human nature to rush off in all directions in the rush for "The Good Life".

Idyllic country retreats in Leitrim with poor Public Transport links to schools,employments and associated services...poor access to internet,sewage and whatever other services are easier and cheaper to provide in Urban environments.

One could go on....but reality as ever,intrudes.

Am I to take it that Ireland with an adult population of C.3,000,000 has the capability,or even the need,to allow each of these adults to purchase their own small plot of the country ?

What then ?

How,in the absence of a functional economy do the newly enriched property owners then set about the funding of their own little mini-countries for the remainder of their lives,whilst also funding all of the other elements which go to make up our social existance....?

It cannot simply ALL be about owning your own home....for many this recession has opened up a vista which allows them to see an alternative...one which sees them and their families being able to afford other elements of life.....

What is required from Government is a commitment to replace universal private residential ownership with a guaranteed and regulated universal private resedential usership,which also carries with it the capability to have a far more sustainable approach to land useage and development than endless ribbon developments of "Luxury" detached and semi-detached residences.

Maintaining the need to own ones own home as a life goal,is not a good thing IMO,and will only ensure an endless rerunning of the current mess.

Heads the ball

Welease wrote: »

Heads the ball wrote: »

€10 would be a 5%

Not of SW..

SW consists of various different schemes incl. housing/rent allowances, child benefits, medical cards etc.

A €10 cut for an unemployed family with 3 kids in social housing is far from a 5% cut to them...
A €10 cut across JSB/JSA is far from a 5% cut on the SW costs to the country.

There is nothing particularly insightful in this post other than to tell me my example doesnt cover the entire sw budget

Count Dooku

General Atomic wrote: »

The problem with your approach is that it's backwards. Instead of cutting the deficit with an aim to reducing our debt, we need to take more measures to stimulate our economy so that our deficit shrinks through increased tax income.

Do you mean continue to resell imported goods on borrowed money and pretend that economy is growing as we did before under FF rule?

Welease

Heads the ball wrote: »

There is nothing particularly insightful in this post other than to tell me my example doesnt cover the entire sw budget

Which one would assume the previous poster was referring to, when they said "The reality is that the SW budget will probably need to be reduced by more than 2%"... So your 5% example was off the mark considerably..

KyussBishop

AlekSmart wrote:

...

Again, you have failed to explain or justify various things:
1: How do you justify wanting houses to cost more than before, inflating them in value far beyond their base cost?
2: You seem to think houses in the past were undervalued, despite us just having gone through the biggest property bubble in the states history, and despite most credible economists believing our housing market has still not bottomed out. This makes no sense.
3: Renting costs more through a persons lifetime than buying a house, so how is it affordable to rent and not to buy?
4: The current crisis was caused by inflated house prices and cheap credit, i.e. loans being given out too easily; you seem to think that if those issues are resolved, that people will still run away with themselves into debt again, despite the fact that proper credit restrictions would stop this.

You just keep reasserting "not everyone can afford it", and you completely fail to explain why, you just give spurious unsupported reasons and straw men arguments as to why it would be bad, failing to address the above.

Also, one strawman in particular which I have not posited, is that people buy luxury detached/semi-detached houses; people could just as easily buy apartments, which are of course far lower in price. No reason at all why they should not be affordable.

General Atomic

Count Dooku wrote: »

Do you mean continue to resell imported goods on borrowed money and pretend that economy is growing as we did before under FF rule?

I mean stimulate the economy through infrastructure improvements and incentives for company creation through organizations like Enterprise Ireland. To be honest though, defaulting on our debt and dropping out of the Euro would ultimately be a great move for us despite the short-term problems it would cause. It's difficult for us to compete with other countries in the eurozone like Germany when we don't have control over our own currency and it's difficult for us to have any credibility in the bond markets for the same reason. Thus we can't borrow money to fuel these projects and we have to instead rely on money that has ludicrous austerity strings attached.

djpbarry

General Atomic wrote: »

...our unemployment rate is still rising, we've not begun to truly recover yet.

There are going to be substantial numbers of people unemployed in Ireland for the foreseeable future, recovery or no recovery, because the construction sector isn’t going to return to anything approaching the scale we saw during the boom.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Also, one strawman in particular which I have not posited, is that people buy luxury detached/semi-detached houses; people could just as easily buy apartments, which are of course far lower in price.

But, in an Irish context, that’s completely unrealistic. Most people will want to buy a detached/semi-detached property rather than a flat.

djpbarry

General Atomic wrote: »

...defaulting on our debt and dropping out of the Euro would ultimately be a great move for us despite the short-term problems it would cause.

1. Default
2. Leave Euro
3. ?
4. Profit

General Atomic

djpbarry wrote: »

1. Default
2. Leave Euro
3. ?
4. Profit

Being in the eurozone is more of a noble ideal of the european project than a practical advantage. Granted, not having to deal with money switching when travelling is useful, but the disadvantages are massive on a national scale.

Take a look at Britain, they have control over their own currency and as a result they did not need a bailout; they could use their own central bank to directly inject capital funds into the ailing bank instead of taking loans with economy-damaging strings attached. We saw this occur again recently ahead of the Spanish bailout talks, when the Bank of England basically conjured up money for banks to rely on should the Spanish deal result in losses for domestic institutions. You might make the argument that this measure results in inflation, but given that the money is basically going into bank capital reserves and not into general circulation, this does not end up being the case.

At the same time, Britain's bond yields are at an all-time low because they're viewed as a safe port in the eurozone storm; they never have to default because they can just create more pounds out of nothing if they need to, thus they represent a very safe bet. Granted, they're not borrowing and stimulating their economy, but that's more down to the delusions of the conservatives regarding big government than any practical concern. If we had our own currency, we'd be a lot better off right now.

KyussBishop

djpbarry wrote:

But, in an Irish context, that’s completely unrealistic. Most people will want to buy a detached/semi-detached property rather than a flat.

It's not unrealistic really, if there are flats available and they are a cheap starting point, people will buy them.

murphaph

General Atomic wrote: »

Take a look at Britain, they have control over their own currency and as a result they did not need a bailout

Specious reasoning. Britain also had control over its currency in 1976 when it asked for a strings attached IMF loan.

In 1976 Britain faced financial crisis. The Labour government was forced to apply to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a loan of nearly $4 billion. IMF negotiators insisted on deep cuts in public expenditure, greatly affecting economic and social policy.

Ireland is a country, if ever there was one, that can benefit from politicians not being able to fiddle around with the currency like a play thing that they can use to hide their economic mismanagement. Being in the Euro means our government cannot give us all a sly paycut by devaluing the Punt and making us all poorer. They are (slowly) being forced to address the structural issues with our economy and IMO this is a great thing for the country. No "get rich quick schemes" etc. just hard work and yes, real austerity will get us out of the mess we have created for ourselves (not foisted upon us-self inflicted!)

We have major issues with competitiveness because we, generally, pay ourselves too much compared to our nearest neighbours. Devaluing the Punt would make us all poorer, even companies and individuals who are competitive, instead of tackling the real innefficiencies (mostly state run).

murphaph

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's not unrealistic really, if there are flats available and they are a cheap starting point, people will buy them.

See, you're already talkning about a "property ladder" again. Buy a "starter home and trade up" etc. When (if) a German makes a decision to buy a home, it'll almost certainly be the one he dies in. There is no property ladder here.

Ireland doesn't have to slavishly follow an anglo-saxon model in everything it does. Sometimes the continental ways are better in the long run.

NIMAN

We all know that there are wealthy people in Ireland who are getting benefits they don't really need.

Its partly down to the systems not being easily put in place to means test people, plus an element of politicians not wanting to annoy potential voters too much.

I personally know an incredibly wealthy retired couple who have a property worth maybe around €750k, own a lot of assets, very good private pensions but still are given free telephone calls and electricity, free travel, and generous old age pensions. They don't need them, and I am sure the country is coming down with others in their same situation.

Farmer Pudsey

murphaph wrote: »

We have major issues with competitiveness because we, generally, pay ourselves too much compared to our nearest neighbours. Devaluing the Punt would make us all poorer, even companies and individuals who are competitive, instead of tackling the real innefficiencies (mostly state run).

Yes we do and the biggest offender is the public service devaluing to a punt would not make us poorer yes we would get a short sharpe shock but after that people that are involved ib the export economy would start to make money multinationsls in ireland, farming,fishing and tourism and as long as we did not allow pay rises in the public service the country would rock again.

NIMAN wrote: »

We all know that there are wealthy people in Ireland who are getting benefits they don't really need.

Its partly down to the systems not being easily put in place to means test people, plus an element of politicians not wanting to annoy potential voters too much.

I personally know an incredibly wealthy retired couple who have a property worth maybe around €750k, own a lot of assets, very good private pensions but still are given free telephone calls and electricity, free travel, and generous old age pensions. They don't need them, and I am sure the country is coming down with others in their same situation.

There is a big move to means test everything while agree that free telephone, travel and electricity are perks why should we punish someone that has beem prudent and saved and provided for there old age. What might be a very good private pension at 65 after 20 years of inflation will be meagre at 85 but you will find that these people will still not be aburden on the state.

The one advantage of people having wealth is that there family are more likly to look after them and not plonk them in a nursing home if they have nothing letting the state pick up the bill at the cost of 35-40K ayear

General Atomic wrote: »

I mean stimulate the economy through infrastructure improvements and incentives for company creation through organizations like Enterprise Ireland. To be honest though, defaulting on our debt and dropping out of the Euro would ultimately be a great move for us despite the short-term problems it would cause. It's difficult for us to compete with other countries in the eurozone like Germany when we don't have control over our own currency and it's difficult for us to have any credibility in the bond markets for the same reason. Thus we can't borrow money to fuel these projects and we have to instead rely on money that has ludicrous austerity strings attached.

We tried stimulating our economy in the late seventies it did not work to stimulate your economy you need money and what would you spend it on the Western rail, also big construction projects are no longer labour intensive so will give very little boost to the economy but will rather make CRH more valuable
The reason we cannot complete is that they use there strenghts to compete such as engineering and production a devaluation would allow our tourism industry to take off.

AlekSmart wrote: »

I do not actually believe that Ireland has a base economy capable of allowing "everyone"
to own their own residence.

It cannot simply ALL be about owning your own home....for many this recession has opened up a vista which allows them to see an alternative...one which sees them and their families being able to afford other elements of life.....

What is required from Government is a commitment to replace universal private residential ownership with a guaranteed and regulated universal private resedential usership,which also carries with it the capability to have a far more sustainable approach to land useage and development than endless ribbon developments of "Luxury" detached and semi-detached residences.

Maintaining the need to own ones own home as a life goal,is not a good thing IMO,and will only ensure an endless rerunning of the current mess.

Home owner ship is getting a dirty name in this country in certain part of europe this is not an issue as you will not freeze to death in the open.

Also I would not want to be dependant on an Irish Landlord. The reality is that for the last ten years people have been building far too large houses in the country in the seventies and eighties the average was about 1300 sq foot now they are nearer 3000 sq foot and in urban area's builders started building dolls houses. Most apartments build in this country are totally unsuitable for long term living and there qualiy of construction is highly questionable and I would advise against anyone paying money for a piece of fresh air.

However I believe that home ownership is desirableand has many benfits but should not be a live goal. In old age it gives security and stability it is only when you go to some countries and see older people living in caravan parks you relise the benfits of it and it is the least well of that suffer when they do not have a permanment home

KyussBishop

murphaph wrote: »

See, you're already talkning about a "property ladder" again. Buy a "starter home and trade up" etc. When (if) a German makes a decision to buy a home, it'll almost certainly be the one he dies in. There is no property ladder here.

Ireland doesn't have to slavishly follow an anglo-saxon model in everything it does. Sometimes the continental ways are better in the long run.

If there is a market for it, it will happen whether or not it is the ideal setup; the point would be preventing them from being overpriced.

Farmer Pudsey

KyussBishop wrote: »

If there is a market for it, it will happen whether or not it is the ideal setup; the point would be preventing them from being overpriced.

No the point is that we should not have a overly free supply of credit. twenty years ago you had to save for 2-3 years before you got a loan, you had to save about 20% of the price of the house. When you bought/build the house you then painted it and furnished it in stage not with borrowed money you knew the scarfices you had to make before you started

However before we continue we should remember this is a post about welfare and not another post about the propety bubble if we continue on that we should go here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056668266

AlekSmart

KyussBishop wrote: »

Again, you have failed to explain or justify various things:
1: How do you justify wanting houses to cost more than before, inflating them in value far beyond their base cost?
2: You seem to think houses in the past were undervalued, despite us just having gone through the biggest property bubble in the states history, and despite most credible economists believing our housing market has still not bottomed out. This makes no sense.
3: Renting costs more through a persons lifetime than buying a house, so how is it affordable to rent and not to buy?
4: The current crisis was caused by inflated house prices and cheap credit, i.e. loans being given out too easily; you seem to think that if those issues are resolved, that people will still run away with themselves into debt again, despite the fact that proper credit restrictions would stop this.

You just keep reasserting "not everyone can afford it", and you completely fail to explain why, you just give spurious unsupported reasons and straw men arguments as to why it would be bad, failing to address the above.

Also, one strawman in particular which I have not posited, is that people buy luxury detached/semi-detached houses; people could just as easily buy apartments, which are of course far lower in price. No reason at all why they should not be affordable.

I'm afraid that having to "explain" the reality of our current "situation" indicates that our respective positions are poles apart.

The Irish realities are all around us,both in Bricks n Mortar and Human terms,and no amount of positing will alter that.

I don't "Want" houses to cost more.

I don't believe "all" houses were undervalued.

Renting only cost's more in a persons lifetime because our socially retarded State Thinking was/is based upon an unsustainable premise,universal property ownership.

I do believe that,with no hard evidence to the contrary,Irish Government policy remains committed to kick-starting the old Property Machine once more.

And,yes KyussBishop,you are absolutely correct,I do believe that if some astute Politician can magic Ireland out of this morass,then a new generation of the plain Irish people will enthusiastically grasp the Golden Opportunity to "get on the property ladder".

I don't feel any requirement to support my contention with rafts of statistics,particularly as the fall-out from the failed property-ownership experiment is being more than adequately documented each day in the various Courts dealing with repossessions and commercial judgements.

It's there,in hi-definition detail for all who wish to see.

The final "Straw-Man" accusation regarding Apartment Vs house comparisons is,to me,unsupportable,as coincidental with the Irish State aligining itself with unsustainable property practices,it also removed itself from taking any form of interest in what should have been the affordable,sustainable alternative to "Buying a House"..ie: Renting a well designed,competently constructed,safe and sustainable apartment capable of use by generations of Families.

It's noteworthy that amongst all of the guff recently written and spoken about Mick Wallace TD,few have noted that his Dublin City Centre apartments were almost alone in incorporating small design features to allow for children and their inevitability in structured family development.

Strangely enough,the only concern of succesive central and local administrations was/is maximising the return available to the developers...thus we allowed the Zoe standard to become the norm.....:rolleyes:

And,I almost forgot....I do contend that significant numbers of Irish workers cannot afford the total ongoing costs of owning their own homes,with many of these workers never being able to do so.

AlekSmart

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

However before we continue we should remember this is a post about welfare and not another post about the propety bubble if we continue on that we should go here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056668266

I agree,BUT I suggest that KyussBishops vision will,if taken to it's limits see the Irish State having to continue with various Private Property Ownership rescue packages,and almost certainly having to increase the scope of these to maintain the illusion ?

KyussBishop

Farmer Pudsey wrote:

No the point is that we should not have a overly free supply of credit. twenty years ago you had to save for 2-3 years before you got a loan, you had to save about 20% of the price of the house. When you bought/build the house you then painted it and furnished it in stage not with borrowed money you knew the scarfices you had to make before you started

Ya that's what I've been saying; that's not incompatible with affordable housing, and keeping that sorted goes a significant way towards reducing the cost of housing.

AlekSmart wrote:

I'm afraid that having to "explain" the reality of our current "situation" indicates that our respective positions are poles apart.

No that indicates condescension whilst deliberately ignoring much of my post, to repeat the same unbacked assertions whilst avoiding any substance.

AlekSmart wrote:

I don't "Want" houses to cost more.

Right, I guess then you didn't say earlier in the thread that property prices are "Not high enough IMO.", no?
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79852661&postcount=83

AlekSmart wrote:

And,yes KyussBishop,you are absolutely correct,I do believe that if some astute Politician can magic Ireland out of this morass,then a new generation of the plain Irish people will enthusiastically grasp the Golden Opportunity to "get on the property ladder".

I don't feel any requirement to support my contention with rafts of statistics,particularly as the fall-out from the failed property-ownership experiment is being more than adequately documented each day in the various Courts dealing with repossessions and commercial judgements.

It's there,in hi-definition detail for all who wish to see.

Yes you've completely failed to engage in a substantive debate here, just are repeating the same talking points.

The high price of property partly had cheap credit as one of the factors, i.e. loans being given out too easily and irresponsibly; that had a direct effect on the price of houses.

Somehow, you either think prices closer to their base cost are out of most peoples price range (which I don't believe, particularly if you factor in apartments), or that the price of houses will rise far beyond their base value (through a mechanism you have not explained).

AlekSmart wrote:

I agree,BUT I suggest that KyussBishops vision will,if taken to it's limits see the Irish State having to continue with various Private Property Ownership rescue packages,and almost certainly having to increase the scope of these to maintain the illusion ?

This in particular just shows you fail to understand the role of improper lending by banks in the crisis; that is what allowed the massive property bubble, and that is what needs to stay in check in the future to stop another bubble.

djpbarry

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Yes we do and the biggest offender is the public service devaluing to a punt would not make us poorer yes we would get a short sharpe shock but after that people that are involved ib the export economy would start to make money...

What about those involved in importing?

djpbarry

General Atomic wrote: »

You might make the argument that this measure results in inflation, but given that the money is basically going into bank capital reserves and not into general circulation, this does not end up being the case.

UK inflation has been well above the EU average for the last 3-4 years.

Farmer Pudsey

djpbarry wrote: »

What about those involved in importing?

Wealth is not created by importing and if you are importing raw material and processing it and reexporting the product the value of your currency has no impact on you profits. People bring up the issue of Fuel however any product exported would get back the value of the imported fuel.

Where we would be ahead is in Tourism a strong euro against sterling and the dollor has decimate this market over the last ten years. Also we export agriculture and fish product which would again rine in value in the new currency.

I am not saying a devaluation would solve all our problems but handeled in the right way it woul allow us to regain compeditiveness. Also England is our export market and US multinationals firms some of our biggest employers. Multinationals would find it easier to invest as we would have cheaper indigenous costs.

Whiskeyjack

Cuts to social welfare would be a lot easier to take - prehaps not even needed - if our social welfare system was better implemented. In many areas there are far too many people waiting on payments and far too many others exploiting the system, and just an unnecessary amount of beaurocracy.

AlekSmart

KyussBishop wrote: »

Ya that's what I've been saying; that's not incompatible with affordable housing, and keeping that sorted goes a significant way towards reducing the cost of housing.

No that indicates condescension whilst deliberately ignoring much of my post, to repeat the same unbacked assertions whilst avoiding any substance.

Right, I guess then you didn't say earlier in the thread that property prices are "Not high enough IMO.", no?
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79852661&postcount=83

Yes you've completely failed to engage in a substantive debate here, just are repeating the same talking points.

The high price of property partly had cheap credit as one of the factors, i.e. loans being given out too easily and irresponsibly; that had a direct effect on the price of houses.

Somehow, you either think prices closer to their base cost are out of most peoples price range (which I don't believe, particularly if you factor in apartments), or that the price of houses will rise far beyond their base value (through a mechanism you have not explained).

This in particular just shows you fail to understand the role of improper lending by banks in the crisis; that is what allowed the massive property bubble, and that is what needs to stay in check in the future to stop another bubble.

KyussBishop,I'm not sure that "substantive debate" can ever be about anything else other than "talking points".

You perhaps,may see it as about "winning" or something,but all I'm concerned about is how,if not somehow or other unchecked,Ireland is headed right back towards the universal property ownership principles which figure so largely in our particular version of the recession/depression.

Your inclusion of the Apartment vs House arguement also appears to be somewhat needless as the issue is primarily about why we "need" to own our own residence.

Ownership brings with it responsibility,and that responsibility,in residential terms is ongoing and most likely increasing as time passes.

Large sectors of young Irish people jumped willingly into this property ownership pond,not because they needed to own a home,but because they had been treated to a total-immersion of property ownership marketing which convinced them that serious profit was a racing certainty.

It appears now to have been all about an absolutely foolproof method of buying an asset,then flipping it on toute-sweet in order to repeat the process on a never ending upward curve.

The notion that Property Ownership,Irish Style,can be simplified down to a nice low "base value" to recognize the reduced earning capacity of prospective purchasers is worth considering,in a nice fuzzy kind of way,but it's not real.

I would also take substantive issue with the contention that it all revolves around "Improper Lending" by the banks.

It remains clear,that by Government Policies of the day,and by the actual demands of their,at times,frenzied customer base Irish Banks lending policies were very "Proper" indeed.

I guess,it's just not realistic of me to expect any real sea-change in our attitude,as perhaps this is a far deeper issue revolving around some underlying need for the comfort of "our own place",whilst coincedentally failing to realize that ownership of that "own place",and all which that entails,is actually pulling one deeper into the morass.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Can folks drop the housing issue please? It is dragging the thread off-topic.

djpbarry

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Wealth is not created by importing and if you are importing raw material and processing it and reexporting the product the value of your currency has no impact on you profits. People bring up the issue of Fuel however any product exported would get back the value of the imported fuel.

But most of the fuel being imported is being consumed in the domestic economy?

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Where we would be ahead is in Tourism a strong euro against sterling and the dollor has decimate this market over the last ten years.

Was the entire eurozone’s tourist market decimated, or was it just Ireland’s?

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Also England is our export market...

The Eurozone is Ireland’s largest export market.

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

...and US multinationals firms some of our biggest employers. Multinationals would find it easier to invest as we would have cheaper indigenous costs.

For a time. But those costs will rise again (pretty quickly if an increase in money supply pushes up inflation) if structural issues are not addressed. Then what? Devalue again? Repeat ad nauseam?

Devaluing should be considered a last resort – it does nothing other than push problems further down the road. As you’ve hinted at yourself, it doesn’t actually change anything.

General Atomic

djpbarry wrote: »

UK inflation has been well above the EU average for the last 3-4 years.

2-3% is pretty much exactly what the Euro area inflation rate has been, we're not looking at a Zimbabwe-style problem here. Would it have been better for the UK to go to the IMF looking for bailout money and being saddled with austerity just so they could avoid quantitative easing?

Farmer Pudsey

djpbarry wrote: »

But most of the fuel being imported is being consumed in the domestic economy?
Was the entire eurozone’s tourist market decimated, or was it just Ireland’s?
The Eurozone is Ireland’s largest export market.
For a time. But those costs will rise again (pretty quickly if an increase in money supply pushes up inflation) if structural issues are not addressed. Then what? Devalue again? Repeat ad nauseam?

Devaluing should be considered a last resort – it does nothing other than push problems further down the road. As you’ve hinted at yourself, it doesn’t actually change anything.

I will deal with your reply as a whole rathe that the junivile way people debate/discuss by extract birs and replying in one liners,

Yes most fuel is used in the domestic economy but the domestic economy would have to adjust, The reason the rest of the eurozone tourism was not effected there two biggest tourist markets was not GB and USA.

The eurozone as a whole may be our biggest export market now but if we have a weaker currency compared to it then we win.

If you cared to read the orginal posts on this I made the point that it should be used to imporove our compeditivness, and as a way to cut public sector pay and health and welfare cost in Ireland seeing as how the government is unwilling and has ruled out same.

The reality is that our indigenour Industries are suffering because of high governmebt costs if we are unwilling to carry out structural changes and we are then we should use a one off devaluation that a move to a new currency would give.

sarumite

General Atomic wrote: »

2-3% is pretty much exactly what the Euro area inflation rate has been, we're not looking at a Zimbabwe-style problem here. Would it have been better for the UK to go to the IMF looking for bailout money and being saddled with austerity just so they could avoid quantitative easing?

UK inflation has been closer to 3-5% for much of the crisis. Furthermore, the UK may not have called in the IMF, however under their current government they are undergoing austerity measure which aren't far off what Ireland is doing.

Scofflaw

djpbarry wrote: »

But most of the fuel being imported is being consumed in the domestic economy?
Was the entire eurozone’s tourist market decimated, or was it just Ireland’s?

The world's tourism market has fallen. And the UK is our largest single market in terms of spending, but, again, it's actually secondary to the aggregate European figures, particularly in revenue terms (2011 figures):

Revenue (€mn) Generated by Overseas Visitors by County – 2011

County |Total |Britain |Mainland Europe |North America |Other Areas
Dublin |1220|248|551|228|192
Carlow |29|7|15|3|3
Kilkenny |29|8|9|10|1
Tipperary(South) |41|12|19|7|2
Waterford |41|15|12|11|3
Wexford |42|22|12|5|3
Cork |432|137|153|94|48
Kerry |186|55|53|55|24
Clare |99|35|27|33|4
Limerick |151|36|46|65|5
Tipperary(North) |17|9|6|2|1
Offaly (West) |3|1|1|1|0
Galway |345|38|177|112|18
Mayo |83|34|29|19|2
Roscommon |21|10|3|8|1
Cavan |24|14|3|6|2
Donegal |54|24|15|14|2
Leitrim |11|8|2|1|1
Monaghan |13|9|2|2|0
Sligo |51|18|26|6|1
Kildare |47|20|20|5|3
Laois |11|6|4|0|1
Longford |7|4|2|1|0
Louth |36|14|11|4|8
Meath |51|20|16|7|8
Wicklow |62|23|21|13|6
Offaly (East) |15|8|5|1|0
Westmeath |39|22|10|3|4
|3160|857|1250|716|343


Source: http://www.failteireland.ie/FailteIreland/media/WebsiteStructure/Documents/3_Research_Insights/2_Regional_SurveysReports/COUNTY_Numbers_Revenue_11P.pdf?ext=.pdf

cordially,
Scofflaw

General Atomic

sarumite wrote: »

UK inflation has been closer to 3-5% for much of the crisis. Furthermore, the UK may not have called in the IMF, however under their current government they are undergoing austerity measure which aren't far off what Ireland is doing.

Fair enough, it's only recently dropped to EU levels. The UK undertaking austerity measures makes no sense though and it's damaging their economy at the worst possible time. Austerity and deficit reduction are poorly-veiled attempts to pushing conservative ideals with regards to small government and the undercutting of public services.

golden lane

sarumite wrote: »

UK inflation has been closer to 3-5% for much of the crisis. Furthermore, the UK may not have called in the IMF, however under their current government they are undergoing austerity measure which aren't far off what Ireland is doing.

not quite.....pensions and social secutity payments have risen.....so has the tax threshold....

so they are all slightly better off.......of course there is the employment issue....but the uk is still producing jobs (see how many irish is going there)
but it is a mistake to compare such a lartge economy....with such a small one...

there is still a recession......but that is only one of many...

Farmer Pudsey

sarumite wrote: »

UK inflation has been closer to 3-5% for much of the crisis. Furthermore, the UK may not have called in the IMF, however under their current government they are undergoing austerity measure which aren't far off what Ireland is doing.

Which is better 3-5% inflation or 3-5% deflation because that is what is staring us in the face unless and is happening in Greece unless either the government starts to do it job or we looks for other ways out.

coolshannagh28

We urgently need either inflation or a currency devaluation . The structural reforms our economy requires are being ruled out however if push came to shove we would be better to cut PS pay than welfare as far as the indigenous economy is concerned . Most social welfare comes straight back into the economy where PS pay is stored as indicated by the very high rate of saving in the economy 17 % . This storage of capital is postponed demand but in our economy right now stored demand is useless .

ardmacha

Most social welfare comes straight back into the economy where PS pay is stored as indicated by the very high rate of saving in the economy 17 % .

Most PS pay is returned in income tax, levies and the like. Welfare recipients pay no direct taxes, in general. People in the PS might save less, and spend more, if everyone wasn't trying to cut their pay.

djpbarry

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The eurozone as a whole may be our biggest export market now but if we have a weaker currency compared to it then we win.

So why isn’t every single country in the world undergoing constant currency devaluation to make itself more competitive?

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

If you cared to read the orginal posts on this I made the point that it should be used to imporove our compeditivness, and as a way to cut public sector pay and health and welfare cost in Ireland seeing as how the government is unwilling and has ruled out same.

That doesn’t make any sense. All other things being equal, how would currency devaluation make government spending cheaper when government revenue is received in the same devalued currency from the taxpayer?

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The reality is that our indigenour Industries are suffering because of high governmebt costs...

Are they? What costs are these?

ardmacha

The Euro has devaluated against the dollar, sterling and other world currencies and Irish costs have moderated. Consequently, Irish competitiveness has improved. External factors prevent a rapid growth in trade at present, but perhaps we will again take off like a rocket?

from Brendan Walsh on Irisheconomy.ie

Farmer Pudsey

djpbarry wrote: »

So why isn’t every single country in the world undergoing constant currency devaluation to make itself more competitive?
That doesn’t make any sense. All other things being equal, how would currency devaluation make government spending cheaper when government revenue is received in the same devalued currency from the taxpayer?
Are they? What costs are these?

Countries do constantly devalue by letting there currency float as the USA and GB did at the start of this crisis. If we had a currenct that we could float up and down as exporting firms be more compeditive and employ more worker's, there by reducing the cost of welfare and increasing the tax base. The massive cost of highly paid government civi servants which cause us to have high rates and excessive costs of compliance where employers have to deal with lots of difference agencies . The high cost of welfare which makes it very expensive to employ workers.